>>3924745What's the diagonal distance of a full frame sensor?
What's the diameter of the flange on e-mount?
Which one is larger?
You don't think that 100% of the visible sensor is the active area do you? Lmao.
>>3924749>Longer flange distance means less of an angle from the rear of the lens, so a smaller mount is okYou have that the wrong way round babe. If the light was coming completely parallel from the lens, it would only just fit inside the mount, if it's coming from an angle radiating from the centre of the rear element, then it can get away with a smaller mount.
This is basic geometry and you're embarrassing yourself.
>But Sony is underwhelmingYou mean the best on the market with significantly higher transmission and less vignette than canon and Nikons 35 1.4? Lol, ok, pic related.
Oh and according to optical limits and their less accurate imatest protocols, the samyang 35 1.4 af has greater transmission and less vignette than the canon 35mm 1.4 L ii, and it also has much better sharpness across the frame, and even beats the canons centre resolution in most settings. Not bad for an FE mount exclusive that costs around 1\4 that of the canon atm on Amazon.
>>3924748>Brand X uses a larger mountAnd a range rover is bigger than an f150, does that mean the f150 is too small to transport people?
Look, I can see you're very very upset over Sony, you've been samefagging this wild conspiracy theory for years and still can't dredge up a single piece of evidence in your favour, and you've repeatedly seen evidence that shows FE mount outperforms canon's time and time again.
Yet here you are, still shitting and pissing yourself Infront of the class, and still unable to offer a single citation that goes beyond "I saw a photo of the Sony camera and I needed to be upset over something".
